Tag Archives: Banning Christianity

The First Step Towards Official Government Condemnation of Christianity

Can being forced to wear yellow stars and crosses be far behind?

While I am not a Catholic, I view this condemnation of the Catholic Church as the first shot across the bow in the escalation towards government ostracization and criminalization of ALL people of the Christian faith, Protestant OR Catholic.

I find it simply amazing that a government body that has no moral outrage or courage to condemn Jihadist Islam for their acts of barbarism and instead defends them, finds within themselves the authority to officially condemn Catholics with a vitriol that Islamists are strangely immune from.

The hedonists on the Left have taken their own secularist and hedonistic jihad against the devout of faith to a whole new level; government condemnation of an entire denomination of faith for their rejection of a lifestyle that they believe is sinful.  Coupled with the insane push to criminalize any criticism of Homosexuality and the ridiculous lawsuit against the publishers of the bible for ‘hate crime discrimination against Gays’ for printing what God says in the scriptures.

It will continue to go downhill from here because we’ve seen before where this kind of thing always leads.

Camps, for reeducation or death.

Somehow, Christians in America have overlooked and forgotten the fact Jesus said we would be hated of all nations for His Name’s sake.  Mainly I would imagine for standing on His Word and refusing to capitulate to the pimps of sin.

 

Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy ‘Holy Office of Inquisition’ 

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church’s moral teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant” will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a “foreign country” meddling with and attempting to “negatively influence (San Francisco’s) existing and established customs.”

It said of the church’s teaching on homosexuality, “Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church’s ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board’s resolution urged the city’s local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican’s instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as “The Holy Office of the Inquisition.”

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, “Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.”

The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.

She wrote in her decision, “The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement” for instructing Catholicpoliticians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation.”

She ruled that the city’s proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.

“It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders,” she wrote.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel’s decision.

“Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church,” he said in a statement. “The judge in her written decision held that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying.”

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” he said.

“In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases,” Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message” that Catholics are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco’s AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce’s Teen Mania “Battle Cry for a Generation” rally against the sexualization of America’s youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the “act of provocation” by what it termed an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”

Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: “I moved here to get away from people like you.”

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion’s views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as “hate speech” for it’s condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture War

Banning Roadside Memorials – Can Arlington National Cemetery Be Far Behind?

ban-road-crosses.jpg

The Secularists never stop, and it’s a battle they will wage until all public view of God is removed from society.

The question remains, will Christians just let them without a fight?

Well, not in Utah, thank the Lord.

Families of Fallen Utah Highway Patrol Troopers Fight Atheist Group Over Roadside Cross Memorials

If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah’s highways will be taken down.

But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.

American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.

But the families of the fallen heroes say otherwise. They say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.

…”I think it’s ridiculous that a small group of offended atheists would seek to stop the family of slain troopers from honoring their loved ones as they see fit,” said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the Utah Highway Patrol Association.

The New Jersey-based American Atheists filed suit in 2005, arguing that the crosses symbolize Christianity and break state and federal laws against roadside memorials.

Isn’t it amazing how an Atheist Org out of New Jersey thinks it needs to meddle in the affairs of those citizens in Utah??

I’m sure that scouring the land there in Utah – they were able to find ONE SHMOE who was willing to complain so the full weight of Northeastern Scularists can be brought to bear on memorials in Utah.

“They know very well that the cross is a Christian symbol,” said Dave Silverman, spokesman for the group. “They are breaking the law by putting up memorials for fallen heroes.”

The Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private organization, designed and constructed the memorials with private funding in 1998. Private citizens can memorialize troopers who died in the line of duty, under Utah state law, Babione said.

“There’s nothing unconstitutional here because the memorials cost taxpayers nothing,” he said.

But Brian Barnard, a lawyer representing American Atheists, said the memorial is a Roman cross, which symbolizes Christianity.

“The use of those crosses constitutes and endorses Christianity,” Barnard said. “Although it’s an acknowledgement of the death of these troopers, it is also an endorsement of Christianity.”

Barnard said the highway association downplays the significance of the cross, claiming it is a secular symbol.

I think it does not help to give the Secularists ammo and make statements like that which will turn the argument into whether a cross is a Christian symbol or not. Everyone is aware that the cross symbolizes both faith and death as a marker. I think it would serve their interests better to simply say that it is indeed a cross – that is universally recognized as a memorial symbol that has both religious and cultural significance. Argue the point over whether having a memorial to fallen officers is an establishment of a state-run church rather than arguing over whether the cross is religious or not.

“There’s no question at all that these highway patrol troopers should be honored,” Barnard said. “We should all pause and thank them. But that can be done in a way that does not emphasize religion.”

The group is seeking the removal of the crosses and one dollar in monetary damages.

U.S. District Judge David Sam recently heard arguments in the case and will rule soon on the legality of the crosses.

If the secularists succeed in getting the Courts to ban these memorials, it will be a giant step in the high prize of getting rid of all the white cross memorials in our National Cemeteries.

Leave a comment

Filed under Chrisitan Viewpoint, Culture War, News